the Committee under article 22 does not, in the present case, constitute a sufficient guarantee of the author’s safety. paragraph 1, of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In so doing, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations with a view to determining whether the person concerned is in personal danger. 10.6 In so far as the violation of article 16 of the Convention is concerned, the State party has not denied that the author was subjected to ill-treatment during his transfer to the border post. Those acts should have been the subject of a prompt and impartial investigation by the competent authorities, in accordance with article 12 of the Convention. However, no such investigation was held. The State party does not dispute the fact that the author was illegally handed over to the Spanish security forces while in a state of extreme weakness, after 35 days of a hunger strike and five days of refusing to take liquids. The fact of handing over a person under such circumstances for prolonged interrogation in itself constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In addition, at the time of the deportation, the medical file of the person concerned was transmitted by the French police to the Spanish Civil Guard officers. Moreover, the medical details contained in this file, and in particular the fact that the author was suffering from degenerative discopathy, were used during the police custody to aggravate the author’s suffering, notably by forcing him to adopt postures designed to increase his back pain. The fact of having supplied the medical file also constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 11.4 The Committee recalls that during the consideration of the third periodic report submitted by Spain under article 19 of the Convention, it expressed its concern about complaints of acts of torture and ill-treatment. It also noted that, notwithstanding the legal guarantees as to the conditions under which it could be imposed, there were cases of prolonged detention incommunicado, when the detainee could not receive the assistance of a lawyer of his choice, which seemed to facilitate the practice of torture. Most complaints received concerned torture inflicted during such periods. 7 Similar concerns had already been expressed during the consideration of the second periodic report by the Committee, 8 as well as in the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee regarding the fourth periodic report submitted by Spain under article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 9 Furthermore, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) had also reported complaints of torture or illtreatment received during its visits to Spain in 1991 and 1994, in particular from persons detained for terrorist activities. The CPT concluded that it would be premature to affirm that torture and severe illtreatment had been eradicated in Spain.10 Issues and proceedings before the Committee 11.1 In accordance with rule 110, paragraph 6, of its rules of procedure, the Committee reconsidered the question of admissibility in the light of the observations made by the State party concerning the Committee’s decision declaring the communication admissible. The Committee notes, however, that the application made by the author to the Administrative Court of Limoges was relevant even if, at the time of its submission, the deportation measure had not yet been taken. This was confirmed by the judgement of the Administrative Court of Pau, which stated that the issuance of the orders of 13 January 1997 calling for the deportation of Mr. Arkauz and his return to Spain had the effect of regularizing the author’s application. The Committee accordingly found no reason to revoke its decision. 11.5 The Committee notes the specific circumstances under which the author’s deportation took place. First, the author had been convicted in France for his links with ETA, had been sought by the Spanish police and had been suspected, according to the press, of holding an important position within that organization. There had also been suspicions, expressed in particular by some non-governmental organizations, that other persons in the same circumstances as the author had been subjected to torture on being returned to Spain and during their incommunicado detention. The deportation was effected under an administrative procedure, which the Administrative Court of Pau had later found to be illegal, entailing a direct handover from police to police, 11 without the 11.2 The Committee has noted the author’s allegations that he was ill-treated by French police officers while being driven to the Spanish border. The Committee considers, however, that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies available in this respect. It therefore declares that this part of the communication is inadmissible. 7 A/53/44, paras. 129 and 131. A/48/44, paras. 456 and 457. 9 CCPR/C/79/Add.61 of 3 April 1996. 10 CPT/Inf (96) 9, paras. 208–209. 11 At the time of the consideration of the second periodic report submitted by France pursuant to article 19 of the Convention, the Committee expressed its concern at the practice whereby the police hand over individuals to their counterparts in another country (A/53/44, para. 143). 8 11.3 With regard to the substance of the communication, the Committee must determine whether the author’s deportation to Spain violated the obligation of the State party, under article 3, 50